Fox News: Gingrich's history of cheating on his wives means he'll be a great President

  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Jan 21, 2012 8:10 PM GMT
    Remember when conservatives used to be against adultery? Now, it's a good thing -- it's a testament to your excellent character. At least if your name is Newt Gingrich and you're running for president, so says Fox News.
    (And weren't Republicans the party that claimed to be "protecting marriage" as their rationale for opposing our civil rights?)
    There should really be a national award for hypocrisy. icon_rolleyes.gif

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/20/newt-gingrichs-three-marriages-mean-might-make-strong-president-really/#ixzz1k2puVduW

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 8:35 PM GMT
    The most convoluted and illogical thing I've read in a long time. Which flies in the face of what Gingrich himself said about Bill Clinton's infidelities, when Gingrich was impeaching him in the US House (though not convicted & removed in the Senate).

    Apparently moral failings only apply to Democrats, not to Republicans, according to this FOX contributor. Moral failings make Republicans stronger, but Democrats weaker. Can we detect a double standard here? But what would one expect from Faux News?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 8:36 PM GMT
    I think you know your thread title is a significant misrepresentation. Why do you feel the need to do this? There were two primary points from the article: 1) Marital infidelity does not suggest being unfaithful to the constitution, etc. and 2) He has shown traits that could be beneficial.

    You can claim it is a Fox News position because Ablow is affiliated with Fox, but it is really only his opinion as a psychiatrist.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 8:40 PM GMT

    "1) Marital infidelity does not suggest being unfaithful to the constitution, etc."


    It certainly mattered when it came to Mr Clinton.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 8:43 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    "1) Marital infidelity does not suggest being unfaithful to the constitution, etc."


    It certainly mattered when it came to Mr Clinton.

    The issue was perjury.
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Jan 21, 2012 8:44 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidI think you know your thread title is a significant misrepresentation. Why do you feel the need to do this? There were two primary points from the article: 1) Marital infidelity does not suggest being unfaithful to the constitution, etc. and 2) He has shown traits that could be beneficial.

    You can claim it is a Fox News position because Ablow is affiliated with Fox, but it is really only his opinion as a psychiatrist.


    So, a thread title that is a slight misrepresentation is enough for you to jump down his throat, but when someone creates a thread, has people comment on it, and then change the title and content of the original post in order to be an ugly troll, it's completely fine? Cool standards.
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Jan 21, 2012 8:54 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidI think you know your thread title is a significant misrepresentation. Why do you feel the need to do this? There were two primary points from the article: 1) Marital infidelity does not suggest being unfaithful to the constitution, etc. and 2) He has shown traits that could be beneficial.

    You can claim it is a Fox News position because Ablow is affiliated with Fox, but it is really only his opinion as a psychiatrist.


    Yes, an article on Fox News' web site is "affiliated with" Fox News.
    How much more "affiliated with" can you get?

    Misrepresented the story? The writer is practically swooning like a tween girl who just met Justin Bieber.

    From the article:
    "Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one."

    I know no serious person thinks of Fox News as anything other than Republican propaganda -- the problem is how many dim bulbs fall for this drivel.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 9:02 PM GMT
    nanidesukedo said
    socalfitness saidI think you know your thread title is a significant misrepresentation. Why do you feel the need to do this? There were two primary points from the article: 1) Marital infidelity does not suggest being unfaithful to the constitution, etc. and 2) He has shown traits that could be beneficial.

    You can claim it is a Fox News position because Ablow is affiliated with Fox, but it is really only his opinion as a psychiatrist.


    So, a thread title that is a slight misrepresentation is enough for you to jump down his throat, but when someone creates a thread, has people comment on it, and then change the title and content of the original post in order to be an ugly troll, it's completely fine? Cool standards.

    Never said anything else was fine. Enough people complained. I saw no need to pile on. No one else complained here, and the title was more than a slight misrepresentation. Btw - my main point was not about whether it was the official position of Fox, it was the assertion about being a great President.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 9:07 PM GMT
    KissTheSky saidI know no serious person thinks of Fox News as anything other than Republican propaganda -- the problem is how many dim bulbs fall for this drivel.

    +1000
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1981

    Jan 21, 2012 9:12 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidThe most convoluted and illogical thing I've read in a long time. Which flies in the face of what Gingrich himself said about Bill Clinton's infidelities, when Gingrich was impeaching him in the US House (though not convicted & removed in the Senate).

    Apparently moral failings only apply to Democrats, not to Republicans, according to this FOX contributor. Moral failings make Republicans stronger, but Democrats weaker. Can we detect a double standard here? But what would one expect from Faux News?


    This is exactly right. Morality has no personal meaning for the conservative elites -- it's just a stick to beat their opponents with. The rules they use to attack others somehow don't apply to them at all. In Gingrich's ego-driven mind, it makes perfect sense to spend $50 million of taxpayers' money in a failed attempt to destroy Bill Clinton over a consensual affair, while Gingrich is simultaneously engaged in a consensual affair. Gingrich is the poster boy for the new post-morality conservative movement.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 9:17 PM GMT
    I wonder what they would say if Newt had an affair with another man? Since till death do us part now means nothing to the family values crowd, whats the new excuse for not legalizing gay marriage?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2012 11:07 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    nanidesukedo said
    socalfitness saidI think you know your thread title is a significant misrepresentation. Why do you feel the need to do this? There were two primary points from the article: 1) Marital infidelity does not suggest being unfaithful to the constitution, etc. and 2) He has shown traits that could be beneficial.

    You can claim it is a Fox News position because Ablow is affiliated with Fox, but it is really only his opinion as a psychiatrist.


    So, a thread title that is a slight misrepresentation is enough for you to jump down his throat, but when someone creates a thread, has people comment on it, and then change the title and content of the original post in order to be an ugly troll, it's completely fine? Cool standards.

    Never said anything else was fine. Enough people complained. I saw no need to pile on. No one else complained here, and the title was more than a slight misrepresentation. Btw - my main point was not about whether it was the official position of Fox, it was the assertion about being a great President.





    G-DAMN !!! LOL OMFG !!! It's absolutely amazing what these shameless partisan hacks can support in their Hypocritical efforts to gender up excuses for 'their side' of the isle.

    Yes by all means Gingrich would be "A GREAT PRESIDENT" for his immorality lessons learned and for his experience gained while making the worst reputation of any former Speaker of the House for his miriad of violations of ethics and etc.

    Now SoCal, come back at us with more of the same and please do finish embarassing yourself.

    I'm sure god is with your side's efforts to improve the morality of our great nation !!! JEEZUZ KAARISTE !!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2012 12:42 AM GMT
    "She isn't young enough or pretty enough to be the President's wife. And besides, she has cancer." - Newt, on his first wife.